(08-02-2013 12:39 PM)kingschosen Wrote: It's really a dumb paradox, honestly... as it redefines omnipotence and creates specific limitations that are non-existent to God.

ie

You can't put limitations on omnipotence; thus, the paradox is nonexistent.

If there are limitations on omnipotence, then it's not omnipotent... like I said, redefining omnipotence to fit the paradox.

So what you are saying is:

1) There are no limitations on omnipotence.
2) The paradox shows that limits can be placed on the property of omnipotence by that very same property itself.
3) God is omnipotent.
4) Therefore the paradox is stupid.

I agree with KC on this paradox. I see it as having enough holes that it is not really a useful basis of belief or non-belief. It's one of those philosophical quibbles that doesn't necessarily contact with the real world. It's kind of like looking at computability problems.

The salesman comes out and tries to sell you the latest computer.
"The computer can do anything" he says.
"Can it compute whether any program I input will complete or not?" you ask.
"Err.. well, it can model every atom of the universe and create a simulation of even greater detail that the one we live in now. That's not good enough for you?".
"No", you reply sadly. "I just want to know if my program will complete. Your computer isn't omnicomputational after all. It's practically useless."

Omnipotence is not a word that I'm aware of appearing in the Bible, although impressive-sounding claims about God's power do of course abound. God's power as claimed in the Bible is clearly much greater than that of humans (the problem of iron chariots aside, perhaps). God's power is claimed sufficient to create the universe and "uphold" it. God could presumably reach into that the computer that is the universe and tweak whatever the hell he chooses, whenever he wants. Is that not sufficient omnipotence? He must how also defeat paradoxes? Can the programmer of a universe simulation computer create an object whose x,y,z,t coordinates he couldn't manipulate? Well, I suppose he could put some kind of security restriction in place - but he could defeat that if he really tried? I guess he can't really. Does that limit his "omnipotence" from an in-simulation perspective?

KC is right in claiming the object you require God to create is one that explicitly limits his omnipotence. This is like asking an infinitely skilled artist to create a work that they couldn't modify, and then claiming their skills are therefore obviously finite.

But worse than this - what does the question even mean in a physical sense? What is "heavy"? Are we talking about infinite curvature of space time here, because if we are then that already seems to exist in the form of black holes? Are we talking about infinite drag on the higgs field? What does lift mean? Does it mean anti-gravity? Does it mean applying a force - exchanging bosons at a rate such that they overcome the infinite curvature associated with the heavy rock? By lift, do we simply mean "accelerate"? This question seems as rooted in discredited physical notions as the Bible itself.

It's a bit like the Immovable Object vs Unstoppable force paradox - it changes dramatically when you ask for a definition of terms that relates to current scientific knowledge:

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.

1) There are no limitations on omnipotence.
2) The paradox shows that limits can be placed on the property of omnipotence by that very same property itself.
3) God is omnipotent.
4) Therefore the paradox is stupid.

I agree with KC on this paradox. I see it as having enough holes that it is not really a useful basis of belief or non-belief. It's one of those philosophical quibbles that doesn't necessarily contact with the real world. It's kind of like looking at computability problems.

The salesman comes out and tries to sell you the latest computer.
"The computer can do anything" he says.
"Can it compute whether any program I input will complete or not?" you ask.
"Err.. well, it can model every atom of the universe and create a simulation of even greater detail that the one we live in now. That's not good enough for you?".
"No", you reply sadly. "I just want to know if my program will complete. Your computer isn't omnicomputational after all. It's practically useless."

Omnipotence is not a word that I'm aware of appearing in the Bible, although impressive-sounding claims about God's power do of course abound. God's power as claimed in the Bible is clearly much greater than that of humans (the problem of iron chariots aside, perhaps). God's power is claimed sufficient to create the universe and "uphold" it. God could presumably reach into that the computer that is the universe and tweak whatever the hell he chooses, whenever he wants. Is that not sufficient omnipotence? He must how also defeat paradoxes? Can the programmer of a universe simulation computer create an object whose x,y,z,t coordinates he couldn't manipulate? Well, I suppose he could put some kind of security restriction in place - but he could defeat that if he really tried? I guess he can't really. Does that limit his "omnipotence" from an in-simulation perspective?

KC is right in claiming the object you require God to create is one that explicitly limits his omnipotence. This is like asking an infinitely skilled artist to create a work that they couldn't modify, and then claiming their skills are therefore obviously finite.

But worse than this - what does the question even mean in a physical sense? What is "heavy"? Are we talking about infinite curvature of space time here, because if we are then that already seems to exist in the form of black holes? Are we talking about infinite drag on the higgs field? What does lift mean? Does it mean anti-gravity? Does it mean applying a force - exchanging bosons at a rate such that they overcome the infinite curvature associated with the heavy rock? By lift, do we simply mean "accelerate"? This question seems as rooted in discredited physical notions as the Bible itself.

It's a bit like the Immovable Object vs Unstoppable force paradox - it changes dramatically when you ask for a definition of terms that relates to current scientific knowledge:

Don't overthink it. It's simple.

If one assumes omnipotence, one derives a contradiction.

Therefore, God (if it exists) is not omnipotent.

Reductio ad absurdum proof.

If one then says that God is not bound by logic, that is special pleading.

Fail.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

After all, they do not have an assigned value or worth, hence they are all worthless.

Ad homs are also worthless.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

1) There are no limitations on omnipotence.
2) The paradox shows that limits can be placed on the property of omnipotence by that very same property itself.
3) God is omnipotent.
4) Therefore the paradox is stupid.

I agree with KC on this paradox. I see it as having enough holes that it is not really a useful basis of belief or non-belief. It's one of those philosophical quibbles that doesn't necessarily contact with the real world. It's kind of like looking at computability problems.

The salesman comes out and tries to sell you the latest computer.
"The computer can do anything" he says.
"Can it compute whether any program I input will complete or not?" you ask.
"Err.. well, it can model every atom of the universe and create a simulation of even greater detail that the one we live in now. That's not good enough for you?".
"No", you reply sadly. "I just want to know if my program will complete. Your computer isn't omnicomputational after all. It's practically useless."

Omnipotence is not a word that I'm aware of appearing in the Bible, although impressive-sounding claims about God's power do of course abound. God's power as claimed in the Bible is clearly much greater than that of humans (the problem of iron chariots aside, perhaps). God's power is claimed sufficient to create the universe and "uphold" it. God could presumably reach into that the computer that is the universe and tweak whatever the hell he chooses, whenever he wants. Is that not sufficient omnipotence? He must how also defeat paradoxes? Can the programmer of a universe simulation computer create an object whose x,y,z,t coordinates he couldn't manipulate? Well, I suppose he could put some kind of security restriction in place - but he could defeat that if he really tried? I guess he can't really. Does that limit his "omnipotence" from an in-simulation perspective?

KC is right in claiming the object you require God to create is one that explicitly limits his omnipotence. This is like asking an infinitely skilled artist to create a work that they couldn't modify, and then claiming their skills are therefore obviously finite.

But worse than this - what does the question even mean in a physical sense? What is "heavy"? Are we talking about infinite curvature of space time here, because if we are then that already seems to exist in the form of black holes? Are we talking about infinite drag on the higgs field? What does lift mean? Does it mean anti-gravity? Does it mean applying a force - exchanging bosons at a rate such that they overcome the infinite curvature associated with the heavy rock? By lift, do we simply mean "accelerate"? This question seems as rooted in discredited physical notions as the Bible itself.

It's a bit like the Immovable Object vs Unstoppable force paradox - it changes dramatically when you ask for a definition of terms that relates to current scientific knowledge:

Like Chas said, you are over thinking the paradox.

The idea of it is simply to show that it is logically impossible for something to be omnipotent.

The way it does this is by using proof by contradiction - it assumes something is omnipotent, and uses it to find a contradiction with reality or logic - in this case logic.

It shows that it is logically incoherent for something to be omnipotent - because:-

Premise 1) Either that something can or cannot limit itself. (The only two options available)

Conclusion 1) If it can, then it is limited and not omnipotent.
Conclusion 2) If it cannot, then it is unable to do something (ie limit itself) and is not omnipotent.

You are wrong to suggest we are imposing limits on the omnipotent thing. The paradox shows that omnipotence by the laws of logic automatically imposes limits on itself, and hence makes no sense.

Which like Chas said, can only lead to special pleading by the theist if they wish to continue claiming omnipotence.

(10-02-2013 08:52 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote: You are wrong to suggest we are imposing limits on the omnipotent thing. The paradox shows that omnipotence by the laws of logic automatically imposes limits on itself, and hence makes no sense.

Which like Chas said, can only lead to special pleading by the theist if they wish to continue claiming omnipotence.

Isn't the supposed ability to manipulate and change the state of any part of the universe throughout space and time sufficient to use the term "omnipotent"? Isn't it "all powerful", at least in terms of the universe itself? You are choosing a self-contradictory version of omnipotence that I don't think is supported by religious doctrine or documents. In doing so you disprove a strawman version of omnipotence rather than the omnipotence claimed by theists.

That is, unless you can find significant theist groups claiming your self-contradictory version of omnipotence. Then yes, you would have disproven their god.

Otherwise, if this is not intended as a serious argument then that took is ok so long as you aren't claiming it as serious.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.